# call_function() and $bf_FOO()

slayer@kaiwan.com (slayer@kaiwan.com)
Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:36:28 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 01:33 AM 4/28/96 -0400, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
    >At 09:59 PM 4/27/96 PDT, slayer@kaiwan.com wrote:
    >>>So?   If this happens, it obviously means something was programmed
    >>>incorrectly and should raise an E_MAXREC.  What else could it do?
    >
    >I can't believe nobody here pointed this out...  From the changelog, IF THE
    >VERB CONTAINING THE BUILTIN IS NOT ON #0, then $bf_FOO is called...  Thus,
    >if it IS on #0, then $bf_FOO ISN'T called...  there's nothing recursive
    >about this.
    >
    >- Kipp

    I can't believe you didn't read the whole thread.. Dark_Owl was commenting
    about why call_function from #0 doesn't make it a whole new call to
    $bf_whatever... if that happens things will get recursive.

    This is not a signature.